©2011 navigant consulting, inc. confidential and proprietary. do not distribute or copy. energy...

©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy.

E N E R G Y

DI SPUTES & I NVEST I G ATI ONS • ECONO MI CS • F I NANCI AL ADVI SORY • MANAGEMENT CONSULT I NG

November 14, 2012

PHASE II: UNIT ENERGY SAVINGS (UES) MEASURE COMPLIANCE

Residential Freezers, Manufactured Home Duct Sealing, and Refrigerator/Freezer Recycling

Presented by Christian Douglass, Mohit Singh-Chhabra, Ryan Firestone and Kevin Cooney

Navigant Reference: 150283

2©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. E N E R G Y

Content of Report

This presentation was prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. exclusively for the benefit and internal use of Regional Technical Forum and/or its affiliates or subsidiaries. No part of it may be circulated, quoted, or reproduced for distribution outside these organization(s) without prior written approval from Navigant Consulting, Inc. The work presented in this report represents our best efforts and judgments based on the information available at the time this report was prepared. Navigant Consulting, Inc. is not responsible for the reader’s use of, or reliance upon, the report, nor any decisions based on the report.

NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC. MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED.

Readers of the report are advised that they assume all liabilities incurred by them, or third parties, as a result of their reliance on the report, or the data, information, findings and opinions contained in the report.

November 9, 2012

©2011 Navigant Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Navigant Consulting is not a certified public accounting firm and does not provide audit, attest, or public accounting services. See www.navigantconsulting.com/licensing for a complete listing of private investigator licenses. Investment banking, private placement, merger, acquisition and divestiture services offered through Navigant Capital Advisors, LLC., Member FINRA/SIPC.

http://www.navigantconsulting.com/licensing


Contents

Table of Contents

1 Residential Freezers

2 Manufactured Housing Duct Sealing

3 Refrigerator and Freezer Recycling


Residential Freezers

Measure Update for Residential Freezers

•Navigant presented the residential freezers measure on the Sept 18th, 2012 RTF meeting.

•Actions taken to bring the measure into compliance:

• Updated freezer list to include the latest models in the CEC database

• Updated adjusted freezer volume and chest freezer distribution based on 2012 CEC and 2012 RBSA data, respectively

• Updated Energy Star freezer market penetration

• The RTF voted to keep the measure under review with the current savings estimates until such time as an update with the new Energy Star specification can be completed.

• Current update: The effective date for the Energy Star Standards has been changed from January 1, 2013 to March 1, 2014. Additionally, EnergyStar has indicated that freezers may be phased out of the specification at that time. Therefore, Navigant proposes updating the measure with updated savings information now and to set March 1, 2014 as the sunset criteria for this measure.


Savings Results Comparison

Residential Freezers-Results Comparison

Any

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Any

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Any

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Any

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Any

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Chest, Any Defrost Upright, Automatic Defrost

Upright, Manual De-frost

Upright, Any Defrost Any Freezer

0

50

100

150

200

250

Before and After Update Savings Comparison

Prior to Update Current Update

Savi

ngs

(kw

h/ye

ar)

Any= no Tier; T1= Tier 1 (10%-15% more efficient than federal standard ; T2= Tier2 (15%-20% more efficient than federal standard); T3= Tier 3 (20%-25% more efficient than federal standard);T4-Tier 4; (25%-30% more efficient than federal standard);T5= Tier 5 (30%-35% more efficient than federal standard)


Incremental Cost Results Comparison


Any

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Any

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Any

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Any

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Any

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Before and After Update Incremental Cost Comparison


Incr

emen

tal C

ost (

$/U

nit)



TRC Results Comparison



Any

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Any

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Any

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Any

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Any

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5




0

5

10

15

20

25

Before and After Update TRC Comparison


TRC

Bene

fit to

Cos

t Rati

o


RTF Proposed Motion:

“I _________ move that the RTF approve the updated analysis for the Residential Freezer UES Measure and change this “Proven” category measure’s status to “Active”, with a sunset date of March 1, 2014.”


Contents

Table of Contents





Residential Manufactured Home Duct Sealing

Measure Description and Properties

Market Sector ResidentialMarket Segment Manufactured HomeMeasure Category Duct Sealing

Measure Description

Improvements made to ducts in existing manufactured homes to reduce air leakage. Duct sealing must be carried out in accordance with the PTCS (Performance Tested Comfort Sealing) duct sealing specification.

Sunset Criteria 8/2/2015

Primary Workbook ProCostRTFTemplate257f_v3_9_RES_DUCT_SEAL 11.5.12 v4.xlsm

Linked Workbooks ExistingResidentialManufacturedHome_PTCSDuctSeal_SEEM94Runs_03b v4.xlsm

Number of Measures, and UES Components

27 measures (defined by home size, heating zone, and heating/cooling system type), two UES components (heating and cooling savings)



Actions taken to date

Task Task Source Notes

Workbook calculation errors in the SEEM workbook need to be fixed.

Recommendation Memo Completed

Workbook structure and formulae need to be updated to link to latest SEEM workbook, Pro-Cost models need to be rerun, and the measure needs to be re-analyzed using the latest version of SEEM


Documentation updates include verifying and documenting baseline and post condition duct leakage fraction assumptions.


Update EUL Summary Table NWPCC Completed

Update Cost Summary Table NWPCCCompleted

Present supply leakage fraction (SLF) distribution and energy savings for single-wide manufactured homes and larger (“other”) manufactured homes separately

NWPCC Completed


Summary of Actions Taken Since Last RTF Meeting


• Per RTF’s request, separated the manufactured home duct sealing data into two categories:

• Single-wide manufactured homes

• “Other” larger manufactured homes

• The groups were disaggregated as such due to differences in duct characteristics between the two groups, specifically the presence of a crossover duct, and the magnitude of energy savings.

• A cut-off point of 1,000 square feet was used to separate the two groups based on an estimate from Bruce Manclark1.

• Navigant compared the SLF distributions of the single-wide and “other” datasets to the original aggregated dataset presented at the last meeting. Navigant found no significant difference between the SLF distributions; however, due to the difference in savings between the single-wide and “other” groups, Navigant proposes keeping the two categories separate, but also offering an “any size” option by weighting to average size from program data.1 Larger single-wide homes tend to be on the order of 72'x14' (1,008 sq.ft.), while smaller double-wide homes start around 48'x24' (1152 sq. ft.).


Any Manufactured Homes: SLF Distribution (presented at last RTF meeting)


• The following heat map, presented at the last RTF meeting, represents the pre- and post-SLFs for all manufactured home sizes in aggregate.

• N = 4,914 records

• Average pre-SLF: 19.8%, Average post-SLF: 6.0%

0.40% 1.10% 1.20% 1.00% 1.30% 0.40% 30.00%

Pre-Leakage

0.10% 2.00% 2.10% 2.40% 2.30% 1.10% 27.50%

0.00% 1.50% 2.80% 2.90% 2.40% 1.40% 25.00%

0.00% 0.20% 3.60% 3.70% 4.20% 1.80% 22.50%

0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 5.10% 4.70% 2.40% 20.00%

0.00% 0.00% 0.30% 5.20% 6.30% 3.20% 17.50%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 6.80% 4.60% 15.00%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 6.10% 4.10% 12.50%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.90% 2.70% 10.00%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.50% 7.50%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 5.00%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.50%

15.00% 12.50% 10.00% 7.50% 5.00% 2.50%

Post-Leakage


Single-Wide Manufactured Homes: SLF Distribution


• Defined as manufactured homes with square footage less than or equal to 1,000 square feet



0.40% 1.80% 1.70% 0.90% 1.40% 0.30% 30.00%

Pre-Leakage

0.10% 3.20% 2.90% 2.60% 2.80% 0.70% 27.50%

0.00% 2.50% 3.80% 2.80% 2.20% 1.30% 25.00%

0.00% 0.40% 5.40% 4.60% 4.60% 2.00% 22.50%

0.00% 0.00% 3.10% 6.10% 5.10% 2.50% 20.00%

0.00% 0.00% 0.20% 4.90% 6.60% 2.20% 17.50%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 5.10% 3.70% 15.00%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 5.00% 3.00% 12.50%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.60% 0.60% 10.00%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.50%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.50%

15.00% 12.50% 10.00% 7.50% 5.00% 2.50%

Post-Leakage


Other Manufactured Homes: SLF Distribution


• Defined as manufactured homes with square footage greater than 1,000 square feet



0.40% 0.90% 1.00% 1.10% 1.20% 0.40% 30.00%

Pre-Leakage

0.10% 1.70% 1.90% 2.30% 2.20% 1.20% 27.50%

0.00% 1.20% 2.50% 2.90% 2.50% 1.40% 25.00%

0.00% 0.10% 3.00% 3.40% 4.10% 1.70% 22.50%

0.00% 0.00% 2.50% 4.80% 4.60% 2.30% 20.00%

0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 5.30% 6.20% 3.60% 17.50%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.10% 7.40% 4.90% 15.00%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 6.50% 4.50% 12.50%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.30% 3.30% 10.00%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.60% 7.50%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 5.00%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.50%

15.00% 12.50% 10.00% 7.50% 5.00% 2.50%

Post-Leakage


HEATING Savings Results Comparison (based on splitting all manufactured homes into “single-wide” and “other”)


Heating Zone 1

Heating Zone 2

Heating Zone 3

Heating Zone 1

Heating Zone 2

Heating Zone 3

Heating Zone 1

Heating Zone 2

Heating Zone 3

Average Heating System Electric FAF Electric Heat Pump

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Any Manufactured Home Single-Wide( <= 1,000 sq ft) Other (> 1,000 sq ft)

Hea

ting

Savi

ngs

(kW

h/ye

ar)

Note: Average Heating System denotes a 78% FAF, 22% heat pump weighted-average system as per SEEM model assumptions .


COOLING Savings Results Comparison (based on splitting all manufactured homes into “single-wide” and “other”)


Heating Zone 1 Heating Zone 2 Heating Zone 3 Heating Zone 1 Heating Zone 2 Heating Zone 3Average Heating System Heating Systems w/ Cooling

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Cool

ing

Savi

ngs

(kw

h/ye

ar)

Note: Average Heating System cooling savings are equal to 40% of Heating Systems w/ Cooling, to reflect the split of homes with (40%) and without (60%) cooling systems, as per SEEM model assumptions.


TRC Results Comparison (based on splitting all manufactured homes into “single-wide” and “other”)


Heating Zone 1

Heating Zone 2

Heating Zone 3

Heating Zone 1

Heating Zone 2

Heating Zone 3

Heating Zone 1

Heating Zone 2

Heating Zone 3

Average Heating System Electric FAF Electric Heat Pump

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0


TRC

Bene

fit t

o Co

st R

atio


RTF Proposed Motion:

“I _________ move that the RTF approve the updated analysis for the Residential Manufactured Housing Duct Sealing Measure and change this “Proven” category measure’s status to “Active” with a sunset date of August 2, 2015.”


Contents

Table of Contents





Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning

Measure Description and Properties

Market Sector Residential

Market Segment All Segments

Measure Category Refrigerators

Measure Description Decommissioning and recycling of functional refrigerator or freezer

Sunset Criteria 6/29/2014

Primary Workbook: FrigRecycle_FY10v2_3

Linked Workbooks

Number of Measures, and UES Components

2 measures:Refrigerator decommissioningFreezer decommissioning



Refrigerator/Freezer Decommissioning Measure Actions Taken Since Last Meeting

• Reviewed comments received

• Developed matrix to facilitate discussion

• Discussed issues and concerns with the RTF subcommittee on 11/6

• Resolved issues and came to consensus on the resolutions

• Current model shows general alignment with the UMP model with the following differences: o The RTF model data is based on multiple impact evaluation studies

in the region, while the UMP protocol is geared more toward the impact evaluation of a specific program.

o The RTF model accounts net savings in the front end of the model, while the UMP protocol accounts net savings in the back end of the model. This calculation difference does not yield significantly different UES values.

o The RTF model separates R1 and R2 values explicitly, while for the UMP protocol, the R2 value is embedded in free ridership calculation.



Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Flow Chart

Left Off-Grid

Sold/Donated

Kept and Used

Savings

Total Recycled

Units

Left On-Grid

No Savings*

* Although a minor effect, program-induced replacement would result in negative savings.


Annual kWh/Unit and In Situ Adjustment


Component Current Approach Comments Received Key Discussion Resolution

Gross Annual kWh

• Use AHAM data (national average), lookup annual kWh by vintage.

• National average might be skewed by units used in multi-family dwelling.

•The use of the Uniform Methods Project’s (UMP) annual kWh model avoids the estimation of degradation and in situ values.

• Navigant will modify analysis method by using the regression model suggested in the UMP protocol.

• The model will be applied to JACO data.

• Changing the methodology will help align the RTF analysis with the UMP protocol.

In Situ Adjustment Factors

• Value based on California “cool climate zone” conditions, same as 2010 RTF value.

• Using a regression model could avoid estimating this value.

• Recommends the use of the UMP model which eliminates the need for this value.


Part-Use Factor


Current Approach Comments Received Key Discussion Resolution

• Using Nevada Energy ARP 2010 M&V value. 0.99 (Refrigerator); 0.94 (Freezer).

• Values seem high based on other study results.

• Consider using PNW specific data.

• Weight input by program participation.

• Consider using PNW specific data including M&V results of the following studies: PacifiCorp- Washington (2010-2011); PacifiCorp- Idaho (2010-2011); Avista (2010-2011); ETO (PY 2011).

• Weighting values by program participation is reasonable.

• Navigant will use the weighted average approach.

• Navigant will work with JACO to develop a weighted average specific to the region based on program participation.


“Left On Grid” Value



• Simple average of data from Com Ed, ETO, PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E. Refrigerator value is 59%, freezer value is 69%.

• Consider using PNW specific data developed in 2011 which has newer data than the California studies.

• Weight value based on program participation.

• Acknowledge uncertainties surrounding survey questions and respondents’ perception of the questions.

• While the California studies utilized in the current analysis have a longer set of questions compared to the PNW studies, the methodology are consistent.

• The “left on grid” values should not include spillover effects.


•Navigant will work with JACO to develop a weighted average specific to the region based on program participation.

• The value will be updated using PNW studies only.


Kept and Used Value



• Simple average of data from ETO 2011, SnoPUD 2006, and PG&E/SCE/SDG&E 2004-2005, REF value is 10%, FRZ value is 14%.

• Consider using PNW specific data developed in 2011.

• Weight value based on program participation.

• The “kept and used” value specifically addressed units that would have been kept and used by the owner of the recycled unit if program was unavailable.

• The PacifiCorp studies suggested by JACO have the appropriate “kept and used” value.

• The value from the Avista study should be modified to only include the percentage of units that would have been kept and used by the owner.


•Navigant will work with JACO to develop a weighted average specific to the region based on program participation.

• Cadmus will derive the “kept and used” value from the Avista study.


R1 Value - Induced Replacement



• Value based on replacement rate derived from the JACO data. Replacement rate impacts decrement of savings.

• Decrement of savings should only be included when the replacement is induced by the program. This method is proposed in the UMP protocol.

• Modify analysis per UMP protocol.

• Agree that savings degradation should be included only in cases where replacement is induced by program

• The induced replacement factor is a difficult value to get and it represent a small fraction of the total units recycled through the programs.

• This value should be included in the analysis for comprehensiveness, though the impact of this value is minimal to the UES.

• Navigant will modify analysis to capture induced replacement.

• Cadmus will provide studies for the value.



Updated Flow Chart


R2 Value- Replacement Associated with the Would Have Recipients of the “Sold/Donated” Units Recycled through the Programs



• Replacement parameter based on ADM 2004-2005 California Statewide survey.

• This value is not utilized in EM&V studies conducted by ADM, Cadmus, and Navigant.

• Current UMP protocol suggests a value of 50%.

• Uncertainties associated with the ADM 2004-2005 survey questions and respondents pool.

• Acknowledge the existence of the issue, however, the R2 value is very difficult to get especially with uncertainties surrounding survey questions and how respondents could have difficulty answering the questions.

• Navigant will revise value to 50% in lieu of satisfactory data.


Measure Life



• Navigant proposed the use of survival curves. Current analyses uses data from the 2003 SHEU (Natural Resources Canada) study. The survival curve is anchored to the DOE-sourced EUL.

• Uncertainties associated with survey questions from the 2003 SHEU.

• Consider using the ADM developed a remaining useful life schedule for the 2010 NV Energy M&V study.

• All proposed methods have certain levels of uncertainties.

• The DOE survival curve is derived from data from 5 national surveys conducted at different times. It is a good estimate of measure life.

• The varying of economic conditions over time might have impact on the shape factor of the survival curve.

• JACO, Navigant and RTF Staff will review the DOE survival curve methodology and provide feedback to the working group.

©2011 navigant consulting, inc. confidential and proprietary. do not distribute or copy. energy...

Documents

navigant consulting

residential freezers

navigant capital advisors

freezer recycling slide

energy star standards

new energy star specification

updated freezer list

measure wit